Estimation of the Learning Coefficient Using Empirical Loss

TL;DR

This paper introduces a new numerical method to estimate the learning coefficient using empirical loss, demonstrating improved accuracy and consistency over previous methods through theoretical analysis and experiments.

Contribution

A novel estimation technique for the learning coefficient based on empirical loss, outperforming existing methods in bias and variance.

Findings

Lower bias and variance in estimates

Theoretical explanation of improved performance

Empirical validation through numerical experiments

Abstract

The learning coefficient plays a crucial role in analyzing the performance of information criteria, such as the Widely Applicable Information Criterion (WAIC) and the Widely Applicable Bayesian Information Criterion (WBIC), which Sumio Watanabe developed to assess model generalization ability. In regular statistical models, the learning coefficient is given by d/2, where d is the dimension of the parameter space. More generally, it is defined as the absolute value of the pole order of a zeta function derived from the Kullback-Leibler divergence and the prior distribution. However, except for specific cases such as reduced-rank regression, the learning coefficient cannot be derived in a closed form. Watanabe proposed a numerical method to estimate the learning coefficient, which Imai further refined to enhance its convergence properties. These methods utilize the asymptotic behavior of WBIC and have been shown to be statistically consistent as the sample size grows. In this paper, we propose a novel numerical estimation method that fundamentally differs from previous approaches and leverages a new quantity, "Empirical Loss," which was introduced by Watanabe. Through numerical experiments, we demonstrate that our proposed method exhibits both lower bias and lower variance compared to those of Watanabe and Imai. Additionally, we provide a theoretical analysis that elucidates why our method outperforms existing techniques and present empirical evidence that supports our findings.